Can We Trust Todays Torah?

: A Review and Rebuttal of Some of

Sadat Anwars Points
On April 12
th
, there was a debate between Christian evangelist Alex Kerimli and Islamic apologist Sadat
Anwar (of MDI Canada) on the topic, Can We Trust Todays Torah? The purpose of the debate was to
determine whether the Pentateuch could be relied on, and what the relevance of the question is to the larger
question of Christian-Muslim dialogue. For those who are interested here, is the debate:
[URL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmmZtwfUtmI]

A Review of the Debaters Presentations
I think both speakers were pretty clear about what their debate theses were and what points they were going
to be arguing. The two debaters approach couldnt be more different. Sadat had five strands of
argumentation that he was pursuing throughout the debate, whereas Alex was focusing in much more
narrowly on the question of textual transmission, and whether the Islamic tradition supports the idea of
textual transmission. I think that given the circumstances, and given the intended foci that the two debaters
had, they both did quite well in their presentations. However, there remains much to say in the way of
critique of both debaters:
My main critique of Alex is that he focused too narrowly in his choice of what to address. His rebuttals were
scripted and did not address any of the points that Sadat raised other than those pertaining to textual
criticism. Even then, because he scripted his rebuttals, not every issue raised by Sadat on that topic was
rebutted. This is very frustrating for someone like myself who has done a lot of study on the Old Testament.
Many of the arguments Sadat raised (such as the Documentary Hypothesis) were arguments that anyone
discussing the Old Testament should be prepared to address due to the frequency with which they come up
in such discussions, yet Alex did not say a word about them. This is a glaring omission on his part. This is not
how a debate works: In a debate, you address the points raised by your opponent, and provide an adequate
rebuttal to them. I think that perhaps if a cross-examination had been included in the debate format, this
would have been better done, since cross-examination forces debaters to leave their prepared scripts and
engage their opponents points directly.
On the other hand, though Sadat's argumentation had more breadth to it, he did not develop all of five
strands with equal depth. For example, he said very little about the fifth strand of argumentation, which is
that we cannot accept the Old Testaments presentation of the patriarchs and prophets as sinners. Also, I felt
that he smoothed over some of the weaker points in his arguments. Many of his arguments do appear solid at
first, but come apart upon further examination (see below for one example of that). This is to be expected
when one goes through a breadth of different arguments at the price of in-depth examination On the other
hand, I do commend Sadat for his attempts to critique Alexs presentation, and think that they serve to point
to blind spots in the Alexs arguments which he could fix in future presentations.
The most frustrating portion of the debate was the Question and Answer section. In order to prevent
heckling, preaching or off-topic statements, the questions were written on sheets of paper and placed in
boxes. However, despite these measures, many of the questions that were brought up (both by Christians and
Muslims) were only loosely related to the debate topic at best, and were very inanely phrasedthought to
Alex and Sadats credit, they tried as best as they can to use the questions to steer the discussion back to the
debate topic. I did put in a couple of questions in question box regarding Sadats use of Documentary
Hypothesis as well as his argument that the Torah must have been corrupted before it had re-appeared during
Josiahs reign, but sadly, neither of them were picked by the moderator (maybe if the off-topic questions had
been passed over, they would have!).

On Sadats Use of the Documentary Hypothesis
Undergirding a large portion of Sadats case against the Torah is his usage of the Documentary Hypothesis, which
posits that the Pentateuch as we have it today is a composite of four different sources that written between
the 9th and 6th centuries B.C., with the final redaction taking place shortly afterwards. Sadat attempts to
present this theory as fixed, and Mosaic authorship as all but dead. But this is not the case. The funny thing
about the Documentary Hypothesis is actually on its way out. Many Old Testament scholars such as Walter
Kaiser
1
and Gleason Archer
2
and R. K. Harrison
3
have critiqued the Documentary Hypothesis, showing its
many flaws. Even my not-so-conservative professors in the University of Toronto have said that the theory as
it was originally proposed by Graf and Wellhausen is no longer held by most Old Testament scholars.
Alternate theories have been proposed by various scholars, but none of them have received widespread
consent. Meanwhile, scholars not influenced by 19
th
century higher criticism continue to accept Mosaic
authorship of the Torah, with the caveat that a later writer (most likely Joshua, cf. Jos. 24:26) redacted the
post-Mosaic statements that appear within the books, such as the narrative of Moses death, as well the
statements about the state of affairs to this day and at this timethus explaining the alleged
anachronisms.
4

But what evidence is there for the Mosaic authorship of the Torah? The main evidence for this comes from
various historical and chronological cues contained within the five books themselves. Much of this
information has been known for a long time. For example, E. J. Young points to excavated business
documents from the Horites/Hurrians (mentioned in Gen. 14:6). He notes how many of the customs
mentioned in Genesis, such as designating an adopted son as ones heir (Gen. 15:3), the validity of oral
blessings (Gen. 27:1ff), and bowing seven times towards a superior (Gen. 33:3), are well attested in the
documents. This demonstrates that Genesis could not have been written centuries later by authors who were
unaware of these practices.
5

Even such things as the price paid by the slave caravan for Joseph in Gen. 37:20 points to a definite point in
history, as twenty shekels of silver was the price of a slave in the early to mid 2
nd
millennium B.C. (cf. The
Code of Hammurabi and Mari Tablets), whereas the price had gone up to 50-60 shekels during the Neo-
Assyrian Period, and 90-120 shekels by the Persian Period, which is when the Torah was alleged to have been
redacted.
6
The Documentary Hypothesis is unable to explain how the Pentateuch could display such
knowledge of the early to mid 2
nd
millennium socio-historical milieu. This is also true of the military alliance
in Genesis 14 give clues as to the historical origin of the Torah: Walter Kaiser points out that such an alliance
would only have been possibly in the early 2
nd
millennium B.C., when the Elamites were expanding as far as
the Levant, and Mesopotamian politics was unstable enough to permit the kind of alliance depicted.
7


1
Walter C. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2001), 131-146.
2
Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2007), 71-151.
3
Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), 493-662.
4
See Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents, 22, 25.
5
Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth: Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1957), 201-204.
6
Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents, 87.
7
Ibid., 89-91.
Also, Gleason Archer points out that the author of the Pentateuch shows great familiarity with Egyptian
names and terms, as well as uses phrases that are characteristically Egyptian. As Archer notes: The titles of
the court officials, the polite language used in the interviews with Pharaoh, and the like are all shown to be
true to Egyptian usage.
8
This does not comport with the Torah being authored by someone already living in
Canaanthe author must have been raised in Egypt, which fits in with what we know regarding Moses.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the book of Deuteronomy follows the form of a Hittite suzerainty treaty. The
significance of this cannot be understated, because this literary form was discontinued at the end of the 13th
century B.C., preventing Deuteronomy from being dated any later than that (as most historical-critics do).
9

These and many other historical markers within the books comprising the Pentateuch place the books firmly
within the historical context that Moses lived in, which is the mid 2
nd
millennium B.C.E.

Problem Passages
Now, what about some of the passages Sadat quotes to attempt to prove that the Torah was formed out of a
composite of different sources? A few of them will be addressed herein. This is by no means exhaustive, as a
thorough treatment of all the problem passages would require an entire book,
10
but is meant to demonstrate
that Sadats prooftexts simply do not prove what he wants them to prove.
Genesis 12
It is often claimed that the Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 present two completely different creation accounts. However,
Archer points out that Gen. 2 could just as easily be a recapitulation of the events of day six. He states:
There is, however, an element of recapitulation involved here, for the creation of the human race is related
all over again (cf. Gen. 2:7 and 1:26-27). But actually this technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in
ancient Semitic literature.
11
He then cites Kenneth Kitchens observation. Kitchen writes:
It is so often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation narratives. In point of fact,
however, the strictly complementary nature of the two accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1
mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2
man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no
incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-
distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail
on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.
12

In light of this, it can safely be said that positing two separate creation accounts is redundant, as the first two
chapters of Genesis can quite easily be harmonized.
Exodus 6:3

8
Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 95.
9
Ibid., 83.
10
See Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).
11
Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 108.
12
Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVersity Press, 1966), 117. Cited
by Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 108.
Exo. 6:3 is another passage that is often brought up as evidence of multiple authorship. How could God say
there that he is revealing Himself as YHWH for the first time when YHWH is used of God in the book of
Genesis?
First of all, Kaiser points out that the Documentary Hypothesis runs into just as many (if not more) problems
here, because Exo. 6:3 is considered to be part of the P source, which came last among all the sources. Yet
YHWH is costumarily used in the much earlier J source, and it is not explained why later documents such
as E and P would not know the name of YHWH. In Kaisers words, the documentary hypothesis seems ill-
positioned to give a satisfactory explanation of its own key verse.
13

The issue here is whether to know in this verse refers to cognitive knowledge. It is generally assumed that
this is the case, even though to know is used many times in the Torah to mean otherwise (eg. Gen. 4:1).
Jewish commentaries recognize this. For example, the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan interprets this verse to
mean that the patriarchs were aware of the divine name, it was a mere word to them, as they did not
experience the shekinah glory that was usually associated with that name. Similarly, medieval Jewish
commentaries distinguish between the name as a word, the character that lay behind it.
14

An alternate explanation, which is proposed by W. J. Martin and promoted by Kaiser, is that verse 3 is best
translated not as a declarative statement but as a rhetorical question. What this means is that rather than
translating the passage as I did not make myself known to them, it should actually be translated, I note
make myself known to them? This is based on the statement in v. 4, which Martin argues indicates that the
preceding clause ought to be taken in a positive sense, rather than a negative one.
15
This second explanation
appears to be the most probable one, and definitely has more explanatory power than the documentary
hypothesis.
Genesis 37
There are two areas of contention in Gen. 37. First is that in vv. 9-11, the sun, moon and stars are shown in a
dream as bowing down to Joseph. But how can the moon (representing Josephs mother) bow down to
Joseph if Rachel had already died back in Gen. 35:16-21?
There are two ways of answering this question. The first answer is to simply interpret the moon as referring
to Leah. It is not implausible to suppose that Leah took over the role of Josephs mother figure after Rachels
death. The second answer is the one provided in Matthew Henrys Commentary. He writes, the sun, moon,
and eleven stars, signify no more than the whole family that should have a dependence upon him, and be glad
to be beholden to him.
16
Whichever answer one chooses, it is clear that this is not a difficult question to
answer.
The second area of contention is in vv. 25-36, where the slave caravan that takes Joseph is described as being
Ishmaelite in some verses, and Midianite in others. It is posited that the Yahwist source has Joseph being
taken by Ishmaelites, whereas the Elohist has him being taken by Midianites. The problem with this is that
there is nothing in Gen. 37 to indicate that it was composed from more than one source, as the account
appears straightforward and unified. Besides, if it comprised of two sources, are we to say that the redactor
was so sloppy in his work that he forgot to delete a blatant contradiction?

13
Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents, 138-139.
14
Ibid., 139.
15
Ibid., 140, 142.
16
Matthew Henry, Commentary on Genesis 37, Bible Study Tools.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/37.html
The easiest explanation to this issue (and one that is provided in most commentaries on Genesis that Ive
consulted) is that the Ishmaelites and Midianites, being both descended from Abraham (Midian is Abrahams
son through Keturah, cf. Gen. 25:2), would have had such close affinity with each other that they often
appear together in mixed groups such as this. Sometimes the Midianites are even counted as Ishmaelites
themselves. For example, in Jdg. 8:24, it is said of the Midianite kings Zebah, Zalmuna and their followers
that they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites. If the Midianite kings in Gideons time could be
counted among the Ishmaelites, then why could not the same happen in Josephs time? There simply is no
problem here.

A Transmission Break?
There are few other issues raised by Sadat that are worth noting in addition to the ones pertaining to the
Documentary Hypothesis first is the issue of transmission breaks. Sadat notes that there are two points in
history where the Torah was forgotten and then recovered. The first was in Josiahs time (cf. 2 Kings 22), and
the second was in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The argument, so it goes, is that the Torah would have
been corrupted during the period of time that it was forgotten. There are some problems with this, however:
1) It simply does not follow that if the Torah had been forgotten for a period of time, then it must have
been corrupted in that time period. It could just as well be that the Torah scrolls had lain unused and
untouched until their recovery. There is simply no evidence that anyone had tampered with the
scrolls during the period of time that they were being neglected.
2) The accusation of corruption implies some sort of dishonesty or corruption on the part of Hilkiah
and Ezra, yet where is the evidence that these two were anything but pious, God-fearing Jews? If
anyone is to corrupt the Torah, surely these two figures would be the least likely suspects for such
corruption.
3) According to the Islamic narrative, the corruption of the previous scriptures came as a result of an
accompanying corruption of belief away from Monotheism towards idolatry. Yet when the Torah
was recovered, in both instances there was a renewal of the true worship of God and rejection of
idolatry, precisely the opposite of what the Islamic narrative claims. If we accept the Islamic
apologists argument here, we are left with the conclusion that there was a corruption towards
Monotheism, rather than away from it!
Given these three problems, the argument for corruption based on the alleged transmission break of the
Torah simply does not hold water. Given the amazing uniformity of the various texts that we have of the
Hebrew Bible despite their being centuries apart, theres no reason to posit such a radical corruption during
the first millennium B.C.

What Do the Islamic Sources Say?
Finally, we must discuss the question of Islamic sources, and whether they accuse the Jews of corrupting the
Torah. This is where Alex concentrated most of his argumentation, and I have to say, he did quite well in that
regard, as Sadat never fully demonstrated that his own sources teach the position he is advocating.
Nevertheless, I want to add a few more points to this topic.

It should be noted that there are two Islamic theories regarding the alleged corruption of the Bible. The first
is Tahrif al-Mana (corruption of the meaning/interpretation of the Bible), and the second is Tahrif al-Nass
(corruption of the actual text of the Bible). Historically, the earliest generations of Muslims held to Tahrif al-
Mana, and it was only later generations that began to argue against Jews and Christians on the basis of Tahrif
al-Nass It is not exactly clear when this shift occurred, although Dr. Gordon Nickel in Narratives of Tampering
in the Earliest Commentaries on the Quran suggests that this viewpoint came into vogue during the 11th century
through the influence of Ibn Hazm, who popularized it for polemical purposes against the Jews and
Christians in al Andalus (modern day Spain).
17
In a study of early Islamic commentaries published in the
Journal of the Institute of Islamic Studies (which also appears in the book), Nickel points out that verbs such as
harrafa and baddala were interpreted by these early commentators as referring to verbal falsification, rather
than an actual tampering of the text.
18
I highly recommend this article and the accompanying book to anyone
who wants to further explore the issue of Tahrif in further detail.

Even after Ibn Hazm, however, there were many Muslim commentators who continued to reject Tahrif al-
Nass. For example, the 14
th
century commentator Ibn Kathir, though he himself held to Tahri al-Nass, cites
earlier commentators Ibn Abbas and Ibn Munabbih (both from the 8th century), to the effect that nothing in
the Bible has been changed:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none
among Allah's creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their
apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed
them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false
interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves.
19

Ibn Khaldun (famous 14th century Spanish Muslim historian) cites stories from the Jewish scriptures in his
Muqaddimah, and then goes on to defend the general authenticity of those scriptures:
Someone might come out against this tradition with the argument that it occurs only in the Torah
which, as is well known, was altered by the Jews. The reply to this argument would be that the
statement concerning the alteration of the Torah by the Jews is unacceptable to thorough scholars
and cannot be understood in its plain meaning, since custom prevents people who have a revealed
religion from dealing with the divine scriptures in such a manner.
20

Even as recently as the 20th century, the Arab Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub wrote concerning the charge
that the previous scriptures were corrupted:
Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the
text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do
this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by altering words from
their right position (4:26; 5:13, 41; see also 2:75). However, this refers more to interpretation than to
actual addition or deletion of words from the sacred books. The problem of alteration (tahrif) needs
further study.
21

What about the passage in Surah 2:79 which says woe to those who write the scripture with their own
hands, then say, This is from Allah, in order to exchange it for a small price? There are three things to be
noted about this passage:

17
Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Quran (Brill Academic, 2010).
18
Tales of Texts Intact Pleasant readings while probing the Islamic accusation of falsification. Journal of the
Institute of Islamic Studies 1 (2011): 14-21.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.quranandinjil.org%2Fpdfs%2FTales_of_texts_intact_IFI
_journal.pdf.
19
Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 3:78.
20
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, Vol. I, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton University Press,
1967), 20.
21
Mahmoud Ayoub, Uzayr in the Qur'an and Muslim Tradition, in Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, ed. W. M.
Brenner and S. D. Rick. The University of Denver, 1986), 5.
1) While it is assumed by Islamic apologists that Surah 2:79 is referring to the Torah, the text itself
never says that the book in question is the Torah. We know that the Jews also had the Talmud,
which was used to interpret the Bible and is regarded as being on par with it. So it could just as
easily be referring to that, and in light of what we had just read, it does seem more probable that
it is the Talmud being referred to here rather than the Torah.
2) Twice in surat al-Baqara, both before and after the passage in question, we run into the phrase
confirming that which is with you (musaddiqan lima ma'akum) in verses 41 and 89. If the Torah is
still with them at the time these verses were revealed, then this militates against the idea that the
Jews were tampering with its text at that time.
3) The passage never accuses Jews as a whole of tahrif. Surah 2:75 states: Do you covet that they would
believe for you while a party of them (fareequ minhum) used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the
Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? Whatever Surah 2:75-79 is saying about the
corrupting tendencies of the Jews, it certainly cannot be taken as referring to all Jews everywhere.
Thus, we cannot conclude that Surah 2:79 teaches Tahrif al-Nass. The most that can be said about this passage
is that it accuses a specific party of Jews of Tahrif al-Mana, and that the text of the Torah remained unaffected.

Conclusion
Overall, if I were to judge the debate based on overall quality of the debaters presentations, I would have to
give this debate to Sadat Anwar, as he was the more articulate and well-organized speaker, and was able to
offer up more points in his presentations. Also, I have to give this to him because Alex did not even attempt
to address many of the issues he raised, which hurt the quality of his own presentations. Of course, this does
not mean that Sadats points are unassailable, nor did I find them highly persuasive. As I demonstrate in my
own response to his arguments, they do have some significant flaws in them. I highly recommend readers
look into works such as Walter Kaisers The Old Testament Documents and Gleason Archers A Survey of Old
Testament Introduction for a more detailed scholarly presentation of the issues raised by Sadat and Alex.